Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
>> > [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
>> > (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
>> by the FSF require the cover text "a GNU manual" and a notice that
>> implies that the FSF sells copies of the text. Both of these turn into
>> factual inaccuracies if I modify the manual to become documentation of
>> the BSD implementation of the tool in question.
> I agree that this is bulky and akward.
> I don't agree that this requires any factual inaccuracy. You can create
> a derived copy of the work which eliminates the content you don't want,
> and wrap the remainder in the required cover and include that as a
> chapter or appendix in some other manual.
Huh? I don't follow this paragraph at *all*.
> Note that content under a "patches only" license will give you much
> worse problems when incorporating it (perhaps as examples, or perhaps
> pulling documentation from a help menu item) into other documentation.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.